C&C 101 vs Landfall 42
How do the C&C 101 and Landfall 42 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 101 | C&C 101 | Landfall 42 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.8 ft10.00 m | 41.7 ft12.70 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 30.0 ft9.14 m |
| Beam | 11.0 ft3.34 m | 12.5 ft3.81 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 8,100 lb3,674 kg | 21,000 lb9,525 kg |
| Ballast | 3,351 lb1,520 kg | 8,800 lb3,992 kg |
| Sail area | 613 ft²56.9 m² | 709 ft²65.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 24.32 | 14.90 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 347 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 33.5 |
| Capsize screening | 2.18 | 1.81 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.3 |
C&C 101 vs Landfall 42: the short version
- The Landfall 42 is the larger boat at 41.7 ft12.70 m LOA versus 32.8 ft10.00 m for the C&C 101.
- The Landfall 42 is heavier, displacing about 159% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 101 carries the more powerful rig (24.3 vs 14.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 42 rates better for offshore work (1.81 vs 2.18).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.